A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pre-test Genetic Counseling Using an Artificial Intelligence Automated Chatbot and Traditional In-person Genetic Counseling in Women Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.
Artificial intelligence
Breast cancer
Chatbot
Genetic counseling
Genetic testing
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
24
04
2023
accepted:
04
06
2023
medline:
12
9
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling. A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19). Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37567976
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13888-4
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-13888-4
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5990-5996Informations de copyright
© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. Version 3. 2023. www.NCCN.org . Accessed 11 Apr 2023.
Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K, et al. Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast cancer: are genetic testing guidelines a tool or an obstacle?. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(6):453–60.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01631
pubmed: 30526229
Yang S, Axilbund JE, O’Leary E, et al. Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in medicare patients: genetic testing criteria miss the mark. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2925–31.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6621-4
pubmed: 29998407
Consensus guideline of genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer. http://www.breastsurgeons.ord/docs/statements/Consensus-Guidelines-on-genetic-Testing-for-Hereditary-BReast-Cancer.pdf . Accessed 11 Apr 2023.
National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Fact Sheets. http://seer.cancer.gov/ . Accessed 11 Apr 2023.
National Society of Genetic Counselors, Executive Summary. https://www.nsgc.org/Portals/0/Executive%20Summary%20Final%2005-03-22.pdf . Accessed 11 Apr 2023.
Schmidlen T, Jones CL, Campbell-Salome G, McCormick CZ, Vanenkevort E, Sturm AC. Use of a chatbot to increase uptake of cascade genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2022;31(5):1219–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1592 .
doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1592
pubmed: 35616645
Welch BM, Allen CG, Ritchie JB, Morrison H, Hughes-Halbert C, Schiffman JD. Using a chatbot to assess hereditary cancer risk. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:787–93.
doi: 10.1200/CCI.20.00014
pubmed: 32897737
Heald B, Keel E, Marquard J, et al. Using chatbots to screen for heritable cancer syndromes in patients undergoing routine colonoscopy. J Med Genet. 2021;58(12):807–14.
doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107294
pubmed: 33168571
Schmidlen T, Schwartz M, DiLoreto K, Kirchner HL, Sturm AC. Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2019;28(6):1166–77.
doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1169
pubmed: 31549758
Nazareth S, Hayward L, Simmons E, et al. hereditary cancer risk using a genetic chatbot before routine care visits. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138(6):860–70.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004596
pubmed: 34735417
pmcid: 8594498
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7.
doi: 10.4103/0976-500X.72352
pubmed: 21350618
pmcid: 3043330
Song CV, Teo SH, Taib NA, Yip CH. Surgery for BRCA, TP53 and PALB2: a literature review. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;29(12):863.
Yadav S, Boddicker NJ, Na J, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk among carriers of germline pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(9):1703–13.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01239
pubmed: 36623243
Tutt ANJ, Garber JE, Kaufman B, et al. OlympiA clinical trial steering committee and investigators. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2394–405.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2105215
pubmed: 34081848
pmcid: 9126186
Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 26;377(17):1700]. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–33.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450
pubmed: 28578601
Tung NM, Robson ME, Ventz S, et al. TBCRC 048: phase II study of olaparib for metastatic breast cancer and mutations in homologous recombination-related genes. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(36):4274–82.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02151
pubmed: 33119476
Neben CL, Zimmer AD, Stedden W, et al. Multi-gene panel testing of 23,179 individuals for hereditary cancer risk identifies pathogenic variant carriers missed by current genetic testing guidelines. J Mol Diagn. 2019;21(4):646–57.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2019.03.001
pubmed: 31201024
Yadav S, Hu C, Hart SN, Boddicker N, et al. Evaluation of germline genetic testing criteria in a hospital-based series of women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(13):1409–18.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02190
pubmed: 32125938
pmcid: 7193748
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). http://genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Information-Nondiscrimination-Act . Accessed 17 Apr 2023.